Appeal No. 1998-3126 21
Application No. 08/479,569
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of the invention set forth in claim 16. Accordingly,
the rejection of claim 16, and claims 17-23, 25, and 26 dependent
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 27, 28, 40, and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner (brief, page 9) adds Sato to
the basic combination of Ludwig, Microsoft, Reed, and Bluthgen
for a teaching of "video display in response to audio
corresponding to video timing information." We reverse this
rejection because Sato does not overcome the basic deficiencies
of Ludwig, Reed, Microsoft, and Bluthgen. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 27, 28, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007